Norwegian authorities’ policy aims at securing an information society for all, emphasizing the importance of accessible and usable Information and Communication Technology (ICT) for everyone. While the body of research on young people’s use of ICT is quite comprehensive, research addressing digital differentiation in young people with disabilities’ use of ICT is still in its early days. This article investigates how young people with disabilities’ use, or non-use, of assistive ICT creates digital differentiations. The investigation elaborates on how the anticipations and stereotypes of disability establish an authoritative definition of assistive ICT, and the consequence this creates for the use of the Web by young people with disabilities. The object of the article is to provide enhanced insight into the field of technology and disability by illuminating how assistive ICT sometimes eliminates and sometimes reproduces stereotypes and digital differentiations. The investigation draws on a qualitative interview study with 23 young Norwegians with disabilities, aged 15–20 years. I draw on a theoretical perspective to analyze the findings of the study, which employs the concept of identity multiplicity. The article’s closing discussion expands on technology’s significance in young people’s negotiations of impairment and of perceptions of disability.
Report No. 17 to the Storting. In Eit Informasjonssamfunn for Alle [in Norwegian]; Det Kongelege Fornyings- og Administrasjonsdepartementet: Oslo, Norway, 2006.
[3]
Livingstone, S.; Helsper, E.J. Gradations in digital inclusion: Children, young people and the digital divide. New Media Soc. 2007, 9, 671–696, doi:10.1177/1461444807080335.
[4]
Goffman, E. Stigma. Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Penguin: London, UK, 1963.
[5]
Barron, K. I am, and I am Not: Identity, a Multifaceted Concept and Social Phenomenon. In Resistance, Reflection and Change: Nordic Disability Research; Gustavson, A., Sandvin, J., Traustadòttir, R., T？ssebro, J., Eds.; Studentlitteratur AB: Lund, Sweden, 2005; pp. 163–176.
[6]
Grue, L. Motstand og Mestring Om Funksjonshemming og Livsvilk？r [in Norwegian]; Abstrakt Forlag: Oslo, Norway, 2001.
[7]
Peter, J.; Valkenburg, P.M. Research note: Individual differences in perceptions of Internet communication. Eur. J. Commun. 2006, 21, 213–226, doi:10.1177/0267323105064046.
Sassi, S. Cultural differentiation or social segregation? Four approaches to the digital divide. New Media Soc. 2005, 7, 684–700, doi:10.1177/1461444805056012.
[10]
Yu, L. Understanding information inequality: Making sense of the literature of the information and digital divides. J. Librariansh. Inf. Sci. 2006, 38, 229–252.
[11]
Storsul, T.; Arnseth, H.C.; Bucher, T.; Enil, G.; Horntvedt, M.; Kl？vstad, V.; Maas？, A. Nye nettformer Staten og delekulturen [in Norwegian]; Institutt for Medier og Kommunikasjon: Oslo, Norway, 2008.
[12]
Kaare, B.H.; Brantz？g, P.B.; Heim, J.; Endestad, T. In the borderline between family orientation and peer culture: The use of communication technologies among Norwegian tweens. New Media Soc. 2007, 9, 603–624, doi:10.1177/1461444807080328.
[13]
McMillan, S.J.; Morrison, M. Coming of age with the Internet: A qualitative exploration of how the Internet has become an integral part of young people’s lives. New Media Soc. 2006, 8, 73–95.
[14]
R？s？nen, P.; Kouvo, A. Linked or divided by the web? Internet use and sociability in four European countries. Inf. Commun. Soc. 2007, 10, 225–245.
[15]
Buckingham, D. Children and New Media. In The Handbook of New Media Updated Student Edition; Lievrouw, L.A., Livingstone, S., Eds.; SAGE: London, UK, 2006.
[16]
Livingstone, S. Children’s use of the Internet: Reflections on the emerging research agenda. New Media Soc. 2003, 5, 147–166, doi:10.1177/1461444803005002001.
[17]
Valentine, G.; Holloway, S.L. Cyberkids? Exploring children’s identities and social networks in on-line and off-line worlds. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 2002, 92, 302–319, doi:10.1111/1467-8306.00292.
[18]
Lievrouw, L.A.; Livingstone, S. Introduction to The Updated Student Edition. In The Handbook of New Media Updated Student Edition; Lievrouw, L.A., Livingstone, S., Eds.; Sage: London, UK, 2006; pp. 1–14.
[19]
Anderberg, P.; J？nsson, B. Being there. Disabil. Soc. 2005, 20, 719–733, doi:10.1080/09687590500335733.
[20]
Houlihan, B.V.; Drainoni, M.L.; Warner, G.; Nesathurai, S.; Wierbicky, J.; Williams, S. The impact of Internet access for people with spinal cord injuries: A descriptive analysis of a pilot study. Disabil. Rehabil. 2003, 25, 422–431, doi:10.1080/0963828031000071750.
[21]
Seymour, W. ICTs and disability: Exploring the human dimensions of technological engagement. Technol. Disabil. 2005, 17, 195–204.
[22]
Cummings, J.N.; Kiesler, S.B.; Sproull, L. Beyond hearing: Where real-world and online support meet. Group Dyn. Theory Res. Pract. 2002, 6, 78–88, doi:10.1037/1089-2699.6.1.78.
[23]
Seymour, W.; Lupton, D. Holding the line online: Exploring wired relationships for people with disabilities. Disabil. Soc. 2004, 19, 291–305, doi:10.1080/09687590410001689421.
[24]
Fossest？l, K. A Policy for Social. tegration. ICT Strategies, Employment and Disability in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway. In Stairway to Heaven? ICT-Policy, Disability and Employment in Denmark, the Netherlands, United Kingdom and Norway; Fossest？l, K., Ed.; Work Research Institute: Oslo, Norway, 2007; pp. 1–10.
[25]
Hansen, I.L.S. ICT Policy in Norway—Disability and Working Life. In Stairway to Heaven? ICT-Policy, Disability and Employment in Denmark, the Netherlands, United Kingdom and Norway; Fossest？l, K., Ed.; Work Research Institute: Oslo, Norway, 2007; pp. 27–39.
[26]
Wielandt, T.; McKenna, K.; Tooth, L.; Strong, J. Factors that predict the post-charge use of recommended assistive technology (AT). Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. 2006, 1, 29–40, doi:10.1080/09638280500167159.
[27]
Lupton, D.; Seymour, W. Technology, selfhood and physical disability. Soc. Sci. Med. 2000, 50, 1851–1862, doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00422-0.
[28]
Pape, T.L.B.; Kim, J.; Weiner, B. The shaping of individual meanings assigned to assistive technology: A review of personal factors. Disabil. Rehabil. 2002, 24, 5–20, doi:10.1080/09638280110066235.
[29]
S？derstr？m, S.; Ytterhus, B. Visually impaired young people’s use and non-use of information and communication technology’s assistive technologies: A walk on the tightrope of peer inclusion. Disabil. Soc. 2010, 25, 303–315, doi:10.1080/09687591003701215.
[30]
Gustavsson, A.; T？ssebro, J.; Traustadòttir, R. Introduction: Approaches and Perspectives in Nordic Disability Research. In Resistance, Reflection and Change: Nordic Disability Research; Gustavsson, A., Sandvin, J., Traustadòttir, R., T？ssebro, J., Eds.; Studentlitteratur AB: Lund, Sweden, 2005; pp. 23–44.
[31]
S？derstr？m, S. The significance of ICT in disabled youth’s identity negotiations. Scand. J. Disabil. Res. 2009, 11, 131–144, doi:10.1080/15017410902830587.
[32]
Baym, N.K. Interpersonal Life online. In The Handbook of New Media Updated Student Edition; Lievrouw, L.A., Livingstone, S., Eds.; SAGE: London, UK, 2006; pp. 35–54.
[33]
Krange, O.; ？ia, T. Den Nye Moderniteten Ungdom, Individualisering, Identitet og Mening [in Norwegian]; J.W. Cappelens Forlag AS: Oslo, Norway, 2005.
[34]
Hughes, B.; Russell, R.; Paterson, K. Nothing to be had “off the peg”: Consumption, identity and the immobilization of young disabled people. Disabil. Soc. 2005, 20, 3–17, doi:10.1080/0968759042000283601.
[35]
Hansen, G.S.; Winsvold, M. Lokalt e-Demokrati Om Elektronisk Deltakelse Blant Innbyggere med Funksjonsnedsettelse [in Norwegian]; Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research (NIBR): Oslo, Norway, 2006.
[36]
Mills, J.; Chapman, Y.; Bonner, A.; Francis, K. Grounded theory: A methodological spiral from positivism to postmodernism. J. Adv. Nurs. 2007, 58, 72–79, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04228.x.
[37]
Strauss, A.; Corbin, J. Basics of Qualitative Research Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory; Sage: London, UK, 1998.
Svendsen, E. “Tal her” Formidling av Avanserte Kommunikasjonshjelpemidler og Betjeningssystemer [in Norwegian]; NAV Hjelpemiddelsentral S？r-Tr？ndelag: Trondheim, Norway, 2010.
[40]
Ravneberg, B. Identity politics by design—Users, markets and the public service provision for assistive technology in Norway. Scand. J. Disabil. Res. 2009, 11, 97–110, doi:10.1080/15017410902753904.
[41]
Hocking, C. Having and using objects in the western world. J. Occup. Sci. 2000, 7, 148–157, doi:10.1080/14427591.2000.9686478.
[42]
Ravneberg, B. De Rette Tekniske Hjelpemidlene. In Funksjonshemming: Politikk, Arbeidsliv og Hverdagsliv [in Norwegian]; T？ssebro, J., Ed.; Universitetsforlaget: Oslo, Norway, 2010; pp. 197–212.
[43]
Sk？r, L. Peer and adult relationships of adolescents with disabilities. J. Adolesc. 2003, 26, 635–649, doi:10.1016/S0140-1971(03)00061-7.
[44]
Kent, B.; Smith, S. They only see it when the sun shines in my ears: Exploring perceptions of adolescent hearing aid users. J. Deaf Stud. Deaf Educ. 2006, 11, 461–476, doi:10.1093/deafed/enj044.
[45]
Watson, N. Well, I know this is going to sound very strange to you, but I don’t see myself as a disabled person: Identity and disabilit. Disabil. Soc. 2002, 17, 509–527, doi:10.1080/09687590220148496.
[46]
Dobransky, K.; Hargittai, E. The disability divide in Internet access and use. Inf. Commun. Soc. 2006, 9, 313–334, doi:10.1080/13691180600751298.
[47]
Emiliani, P.L. Assistive technology (AT) versus mainstream technology (MST): The research perspective. Technol. Disabil. 2006, 18, 19–29.
